4.5 Article

Medication errors in a paediatric teaching hospital in the UK: five years operational experience

Journal

ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 492-496

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/adc.83.6.492

Keywords

children; medication errors

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background-In the past 10 years, medication errors have come to be recognised as an important cause of iatrogenic disease in hospital patients. Aims-To determine the incidence and type of medication errors in a large UK paediatric hospital over a five year period, and to ascertain whether any error prevention programmes had influenced error occurrence. Methods-Retrospective review of medication errors documented in standard reporting forms completed prospectively from April 1994 to August 1999. Main outcome measure was incidence of error reporting, including pre- and post-interventions. Results-Medication errors occurred in 0.15% of admissions (195 errors; one per 662 admissions). While the highest rate occurred in neonatal intensive care (0.98%), most errors occurred in medical wards. Nurses were responsible for most reported errors (59%). Errors involving the intravenous route were commonest (56%), with antibiotics being the most frequent drug involved (44%). Fifteen (8%) involved a tenfold medication error. Although 18 (9.2%) required active patient intervention, 96% of errors were classified as minor at the time of reporting. Forty eight per cent of parents were not told an error had occurred. The introduction of a policy of double checking all drugs dispensed by pharmacy staff led to a reduction in errors from 9.8 to 6 per year. Changing the error reporting form to make it less punitive increased the error reporting rate from 32.7 to 38 per year. Conclusion-The overall medication error rate was low. Despite this there are clear opportunities to make system changes to reduce error rates further.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available